What is wrong with this films

I still shooting film so my question is about the problem of a few negative photos. Although it is the same type of film, from the same Kodak ColorPlus 200 lot, three different rolls and the pictures were made with the same Ricoh XR-20SP camera and Rikenon P Zoom 1:3.4-4.5 35-70mm Macro lens, but in different time periods. The first photo is taken somewhere in February, the second photo at the beginning of June, and the third one last week. Photos were scanned from film with the same scanner at the photo lab.
Film development was done at the same lab, on the same machine by the same staff. What could have been wrong? The camera was used in Program mode (auto) for all the photos on the three films. It was something wrong to develop, the process was wrong, used chemicals were used..., what do you think? Any advice or opinion is welcome, so as not to make mistakes again. The lab told me I'm wrong with camera settings.

The first picture looks underexposed but otherwise OK, and the last one looks fine. The middle picture looks like bad parameter input during scanning, but should be fixable by adjusting the green channel gamma down a bit to balance things out.

The first picture looks underexposed but otherwise OK, and the last one looks fine. The middle picture looks like bad parameter input during scanning, but should be fixable by adjusting the green channel gamma down a bit to balance things out.

Others will have better insight on this.

All pictures (from three rolls) was shoot in Program mode, not manual or other ISO settings.

Originally posted by 08amczb

Wasn't any of the three roll of film expired? It would explain the colors and contrast of the second one.

Nope. The rolls were the same lot and date of made, same expiry date

Originally posted by gofour3

The first shot looks like what I get when I try and adjust the lighting in a scanned image, so my guess it's a scanning issue.

The second looks like either bad film or processing.

The third looks fine to me.

How do the negatives look?

Phil.

The second negative looks colorless, first one look good and third one looks better. I think that lab use the chemicals more than normal. When are new process is good, when are used the process is bad...

the same Kodak ColorPlus 200 lot, three different rolls and the pictures were made in different time periods.
Photos were scanned from film with the same scanner at the photo lab.
Film development was done at the same lab, on the same machine by the same staff. What could have been wrong?
The lab told me I'm wrong with camera settings.

Can you post photos of a strip of negs from the first, second, and third roll? That will reveal if the film was expired, heat damaged, or badly processed (chemical potency or temperature or time) by the lab.

IF none of the above, then it's a bad scanner or bad scanner software setting by the lab.

C-41 processing is not hard to do, but is complicated to do it well. When I managed a photo lab, we would run tests daily that would reveal
a) Developer: replenishment rate and/or contamination, temperature, processor speed/time
b) Blix (bleach/fix): replenishment rate and/or contamination, temperature, process speed/time

And we used a high speed scanner, but its output would vary due to age of light source, age of RGB or CMY filters, profile set.
For EVERY film emulsion, we had a different color profile for optimized scanning. So depending on the lab's scanning software, it's possible #3 was correct, but #1 and #2 were set for a different film.

When we ran our daily tests, the tests were not just for normal exposures, but also for under and over exposed negs. Under and over exposed negatives require a different scanning profile to compensate for how that emulsion skews not just contrast, but also the color channels.

Color film has a red, green, and blue light sensitive layer. Each layer ages/fades differently and react differently to processing anomalies. No matter how advanced the tech being used by the lab, if the user (employee) doesn't care or doesn't know how to recognize and fix a problem, you're just going to get inconsistent results.

Post photos of your three negs from the three rolls in the same order you posted the photos. Without it, my best guess is that there were minor issues in your camera settings combined with inconsistent film processing or scanning by the lab.

Color negatives have a orange contrast mask in acetate substrate. This varies from manufacturer and film stock. If the incorrect correction factor was set in the scanner then you could see results as in the 2nd image.

First image: the camera metered for the background so the statues in the foreground appear underexposed. In this case, the lab is (mostly) correct that the camera settings were bad
Second image: the lab is wrong; bad camera settings wouldn't get you an image like this. It's a scanner issue.
Third image: looks good. But is that dust by the little cloud at the top-right?

First image: the camera metered for the background so the statues in the foreground appear underexposed. In this case, the lab is (mostly) correct that the camera settings were bad
Second image: the lab is wrong; bad camera settings wouldn't get you an image like this. It's a scanner issue.
Third image: looks good. But is that dust by the little cloud at the top-right?

Yeah, the second photo looks like they slapped a "painterly" type of filter over the photo

Picture 1 is exhausted bleach, picture 2 is weak developer, picture 3 looks pretty normal.
Find a new lab, this one has awful quality control.
Disclaimer: I worked in photolabs from 1978 to 2006, and was the quality control manager at various labs for 22 of those years, but have been out of the industry since then.

............................................
But is that dust by the little cloud at the top-right?

Yes, a little lint...

---------- Post added 08-05-18 at 11:22 AM ----------

Originally posted by Wheatfield

............

Find a new lab, this one has awful quality control.
............

It's a little harder and too expensive to find another lab. I agreed with the lab, that when I go to process another films, those will not be processed unless they have new or good chemicals. I prefer to wait...

Can you have another lab scan and print your negatives?? That would settle the question of bad film or technique pretty fast. Since the last came out pretty well, it doesn't seem the film would be at fault (since they are all the same emulsion batch). Scanning errors could certainly cause the issues with the first two (not saying that is the cause).

Can you have another lab scan and print your negatives?? That would settle the question of bad film or technique pretty fast. Since the last came out pretty well, it doesn't seem the film would be at fault (since they are all the same emulsion batch). Scanning errors could certainly cause the issues with the first two (not saying that is the cause).

This is not a bad idea, but the problem could have been caused by how the initial lab developed the film (fresh chems, correct temp and time, etc)...or a combination of things.

This is not a bad idea, but the problem could have been caused by how the initial lab developed the film (fresh chems, correct temp and time, etc)...or a combination of things.

You're right - underdeveloped negatives or residual silver (weak developer or exhausted bleach) could well produce the effects shown in the first two shots. That means that those were processed in a different run than the third which appears as being pretty good. The OP said the negatives looked ok except the second negative being "colorless" which might be expected since it is primarily only one color and opposite that of the mask. It's hard to judge color negatives sometimes. His only option though is to try another scan (from a different service) or have the negatives directly printed (maybe difficult to find that kind of service nowadays) to rule out bad negatives.